Evolution may be more intelligent than we thought, according to a University of Southampton professor.
Professor Richard Watson says new research shows that evolution is able to learn from previous experience, which could provide a better explanation of how evolution by natural selection produces such apparently intelligent designs.
By unifying the theory of evolution (which shows how random variation and selection is sufficient to provide incremental adaptation) with learning theories (which show how incremental adaptation is sufficient for a system to exhibit intelligent behaviour), this research shows that it is possible for evolution to exhibit some of the same intelligent behaviours as learning systems (including neural networks).
In an opinion paper, published in Trends in Ecology and Evolution, Professors Watson and Eörs Szathmáry, from the Parmenides Foundation in Munich, explain how formal analogies can be used to transfer specific models and results between the two theories to solve several important evolutionary puzzles.
Professor Watson says: "Darwin's theory of evolution describes the driving process, but learning theory is not just a different way of describing what Darwin already told us. It expands what we think evolution is capable of. It shows that natural selection is sufficient to produce significant features of intelligent problem-solving."
For example, a key feature of intelligence is an ability to anticipate behaviours that that will lead to future benefits. Conventionally, evolution, being dependent on random variation, has been considered 'blind' or at least 'myopic' - unable to exhibit such anticipation. But showing that evolving systems can learn from past experience means that evolution has the potential to anticipate what is needed to adapt to future environments in the same way that learning systems do.
"When we look at the amazing, apparently intelligent designs that evolution produces, it takes some imagination to understand how random variation and selection produced them. Sure, given suitable variation and suitable selection (and we also need suitable inheritance) then we're fine. But can natural selection explain the suitability of its own processes? That self-referential notion is troubling to conventional evolutionary theory - but easy in learning theory.
"Learning theory enables us to formalise how evolution changes its own processes over evolutionary time. For example, by evolving the organisation of development that controls variation, the organisation of ecological interactions that control selection or the structure of reproductive relationships that control inheritance - natural selection can change its own ability to evolve.
"If evolution can learn from experience, and thus improve its own ability to evolve over time, this can demystify the awesomeness of the designs that evolution produces. Natural selection can accumulate knowledge that enables it to evolve smarter. That's exciting because it explains why biological design appears to be so intelligent."
Explore further:
New research demands rethink on Darwin's theory of 'fecundity selection'
More information:
Richard A. Watson et al. How Can Evolution Learn?, Trends in Ecology & Evolution (2015). DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2015.11.009
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
Note: "evolution can learn from experience, and thus improve its own ability to evolve" is partly factual (the genetic machinery evolved), partly erroneous (mutation rates has not been optimized).
Nit: "evolution has the potential to anticipate what is needed to adapt to future environments". A meaningless description, evolution can 'anticipate' as much as blindly use what worked in earlier generations. If the environment changes, the genome has to change with it. Else something would have to time travel.
Eikka
Evolution is simply what happens to species and systems by circumstances, not a concrete entity in itself. To say that evolution exhibits intelligent behaviour is nonsensical in the same sense as saying "walking sings".
RoMiSo
antialias_physorg
Endless duplication has its downsides, but to a certain degree 'more' can be better. In this case more would be twice (or n times) the synthesis of a particular protein. I'm not sure 'anticipation' is a good word to describe this. It's more of an 'easier path to extrapolation in a certain direction'
Redefining words does not an argument make.
antigoracle
SuperThunder
Thank you, I came to a screeching halt on that one and was starting to feel weird about the article.
Sort of like living in an environment you're adapted to adds a kind of "neural weighting" to the genes responsible?
Uncle Ira
SuperThunder
JVK is the first person I thought of too. I thought "I wonder how this bodes for sniffolution?" It's nice to remember some people warmly in their absence. But hey...
JVK will always be with us in spirit.
Vietvet
Vietvet
So, you agree with BartV/verkle when he states:
"people who believe in evolution are blind and uninformed. It does not belong in a science forum."
antigoracle
Nope! No one cares.
Has anyone noticed your morbid fascination and trolling of verkle?
Yes.
Get a life, you degenerate.
TabulaMentis
my2cts
You don't know what science is.
Yes it does.
Yes it can be.
You hope so but it is a non sequitur.
I agree. Such statements only confuse science with the intelligent design popsicle.
Nobody cares, you are just an alias.
Non sequitur nr 2 and besides,
you do not belong here because you only push religion.
my2cts
Wrong on both counts.
Evolution has been tested experimentally.
You should first inform yourself before judging.
So get cracking:
https://en.wikipe...volution
Bloodyorphan
The only way they could exist is for those animals to actively compensate for the completely unnatural environment.
You have to wonder just how fast the evolution of those species was, your average human wouldn't survive in those conditions for more than a couple of weeks, let alone staying in the water long enough to actually breed and give birth.
I think time frame is one of the most overlooked aspects of evolution, and is probably the most relevant indicator of species self directed evolution versus random mutation.
jsdarkdestruction
https://en.m.wiki...etaceans
They started semi aquatic.
We still have semi aquatic mammals. So i don't see how that sounds downright stupid.
Bloodyorphan
(I.e not advantageous to life, therefore stupid evolution)
The implication is that intelligence and instinct can be inherited genetically.
my2cts
Bloodyorphan
Slowly, and surely they drew their plans against us ...
You should all start a gang , the "Moronic Regurgitators' " , validating your lives with intellect you stole from others.
You can register as a Religion and ask for donations and tax free status, you'll rival ISIS some day soon and it will all be worthwhile.
jsdarkdestruction
Can the martyr crap. You sound like a whiny little kid.
my2cts
The real bully here is you, with your silly claim that dolphins and whales are stupid animals.
Captain Stumpy
sorry... that gang name is taken by all the crackpots posting here...
like you, cantdrive and the eu cult, jvk, etc
as for the "bully" part...
i've noticed that whenever challenged to produce evidence that is reputable, all the crackpots claim that the logical, methodical scientific thinkers are bully's...
so, asking for evidence is being a bully?
requiring you to produce the same level of evidence as the scientists for your "beliefs" is being a bully how?
evidence is a powerful tool. especially scientific evidence... it is why the court system values it over everything else -
think on that (if you can)
Bloodyorphan
PS. I've ignored all of you know it all judgemental bullies so don't expect many responses from me.
my2cts
Ha the witch finder general is back, plan ting the seeds of hatred disguised as "truth and life".
Who are going to accuse arbitrarily of murder next ?
viko_mx
my2cts
talking crap again.
my2cts
Lies ? Did not you accuse me of murder and compare me to Hitler?
You are a source of hatred and you contribute to the ignorance and misery of this world.
my2cts
I think you should be banned for trying to start a flame war on the Israel/Palestine conflict here.
You are an obvious lier and bigot and physorg should kick your butt right now.
my2cts
I call on phys.org to clean you and your filth from this blog.
Vietvet
http://phys.org/n...ion.html
my2cts
It is time your activities here are stopped by whoever oversees this blog.
This should not be a forum for dangerous idiots.
my2cts
OZGuy
Mingx
Everyone knew where he was going with that, and a large number thought he was bound to be right. It had no scientific value nor needed any.
(ergo: what does this piece add, over and above "Natural selection finds a way" at what location in the text)
Mingx
The thing with most....well everything really; that's anything, as it were, in 'linguistics' is, more or less; in effect; for all practical purposes; contextual.
You already what? Well of course you bloody knew it. Most 7 year olds have known since the age of 6.
So there's no excuse for what you do there. Taking what someone says grossly out of context, is the same as lying. It's lying.
The suggestion evolution was more intelligent was encased in a Darwinian context of natural selection.